Headlines I Wish I Hadn’t Seen

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. William Jones says:

    The Problem with Americans getting the healthcare is clearly not their ability to afford insurance it is that regardless of what type of medical care provider you use, you cannot get the care you need.

    • Nigel says:

      The problem is the insurance companies and government healthcare program to cover enough. It isn’t the doctors fault it is insurance companies and the governments fault.

      • William Jones says:

        The amount of money insurance companies and especially the government would have to pay to give all of the recommended care to patient would absurd, and the government would fall farther into debt and insurance companies would go bankrupt, because doctors and pharmaceutical companies need to make money somehow, and patents allow them to artificially hike prices.

  2. John Createn says:

    The 30-day mortality rate coming from certain procedures done on the weekends probably comes from understaffed hospitals having to force their surgeons to works so many hours that they get careless with surgery. Not intentionally, but when people work 60-80 hours a week they tend to get tired = careless.

    • John Duveaux says:

      Interesting point, but with current hiked prices of medical machinery and medicine, how could hospitals afford to hire more surgeons and doctors etc. to do better surgeries?

      • William Jones says:

        Like I said in the post above, the solution to the vast majority of medical issue in hospitals could be solved with the abolition of medical patents on machinery, and medicines, because competition would set it at a legitimate market price based on demand and supply instead of allowing companies to charge whatever they want with no consequences to their business, while creating consequences to patients lives.

        • John Fembup says:

          @William Jones “could be solved with the abolition of medical patents on machinery, and medicines, because competition would set it at a legitimate market price”

          There’s an unstated assumption in your solution: that removing patent protection would not affect R & D of new stuff. But that’s wrong – of course it would affect future R & D.

          But the effect would not be to promote competition; it would instead limit medical technologies and medications to their present level.

          Do we believe we already have all the medical technology and medicines we will ever need until the end of time? Do we believe that all future medical research and development should be solely financed by the government?

          I don’t believe those things. I’ll bet you don’t either.

          If there is to be competition, there must be companies willing to compete. That requires that the rewards of competition must justify the cost of competition. Why would Pfizer for example ever invest $750 million of its own money to develop e.g., lipitor if lipitor could be copied by any other company the moment it begins to be sold?

          Besides, the Constitution specifically provides for patents so your solution would require an amendment. That’s not gonna happen.

      • Jack says:

        There were a number of validity issues with this study. They even state at the very beginning that the “weekend effect” could be affected by a number of variables other than weekend care. This was interesting, but ultimately inconclusive.

  3. William Jones says:

    What legitimate implication could be seen from excessive amounts of visits to the white house? It just seems like he might actually be doing his job…which is a surprise for government officials these days.

    • Thoreau says:

      118 times though? I don’t think that could ever be necessary. Even if there isn’t any type of devious conniving between the head of the IRS and anyone in the white house…he definitely didn’t pay for the transportation…so we did… which is a waste of taxpayer dollars…

  4. Bubba says:

    Head of the IRS went to the White House 118 times ― more than twice as often as the Secretary of HHS.

    I cannot even imagine why the head of the IRS would need to have meetings with the White House.

  5. Jacob Ruisdael says:

    Third link:
    Like the article says, I seriously doubt this is indicative of something sinister. Besides, that whole Benghazi fiasco was conducted over e-mail and phone calls.

    Besides, Sebelius couldn’t have been going nearly as often, since she’s too busy standing on K Street holding a sign that says “Why lie, need money to cover a lifetime of poor decisions.. and booze.”

    • Harley says:

      It’s a little concerning how little Hagel was at the White House, what with all the drone and JSOC activity. When bureaucrats set terrible military precedents without endless meetings first, that’s when it really gets terrifying.